Don't all rush but win2kSP3 available from here

[xortam]

I'm just waiting for folks to test this SP and report on which port(s) to shut down and/or other preventative measures we should take to feed our paranoia. I can wait.

[KvHagedorn]

The sneaky bastards will probably put all their effort into finding a way to piggyback info out of your computer whenever IE accesses the internet. Think about their upcoming operating systems.. the ".net" thing? They keep trying to tie the OS directly to the internet. They will have their way with us too, unless somebody decides to have the backbone to stand up to them, which leaves out our corrupt congress.


"The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more systems will slip through your fingers."

[Victorian]

Originally posted by High_Jumbllama
They could block the specific address/port combination for the update mechanism as long as some other function does not go through the same address/port combination. This would not block all traffic from one executable or Dynaic Link Library.

Ok, that makes sense. I was just wondering if, for example, they could code some kind of a 'piggyback' function into the OS (i.e. a call home function coded into the part of the OS that hooks into the dns lookup function). Sorry, if my questions/ideas sound too goofy but I'm clueless when it comes to issues like this (coding).

[LvR]

Be aware

[High_Jumbllama]

Originally posted by Victorian


Ok, that makes sense. I was just wondering if, for example, they could code some kind of a 'piggyback' function into the OS (i.e. a call home function coded into the part of the OS that hooks into the dns lookup function). Sorry, if my questions/ideas sound too goofy but I'm clueless when it comes to issues like this (coding).

Ultimately they could. After all, they code the O.S. Someone could still code an unofficial patch, but at that point you should be making the decision for yourself of whether or not it is worth it to use a Microsoft O.S. or switch to O.S. X, Linux, AmigaOS, Unix, etc . . .

[Victorian]

Originally posted by High_Jumbllama


Ultimately they could. After all, they code the O.S. Someone could still code an unofficial patch, but at that point you should be making the decision for yourself of whether or not it is worth it to use a Microsoft O.S. or switch to O.S. X, Linux, AmigaOS, Unix, etc . . .

Well, for what I use a computer for, Win2k is pretty much what I need. After 2k, though, I'm not sure....

[MK]

I agree. Switching to .NET in the future does not seem to be an option for me. Wait and see ...

MK

[WyWyWyWy]

To be honest, unless you are using pirate warez, you shouldn't worry too much.

[Greebe]

Even tho you will be forced to block a mess of IP ranges to prevent it from opening a port regardless if it's a specific M$ app or not?

Yes we do have alot to worry about. Some people take security to a whole new level when it comes to their private life. I don't like it nor should anyone regardless of .NET's merits.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by LvR
Be aware

Ah, alright.. so the point in W2k SP3 is not only to steal our freedom, but also to make the ignorant believe that W2k is now buggy somehow and not "up to date" so they will buy and install XP..

You know, when Bill Gates was CEO, Microsoft was not perfect by any means, and they did many extremely unscrupulous things to other businesses. Now that Ballmer has the ball, Microsoft's persona has changed somewhat. They are directly attacking and abusing the goodwill of their customers. How arrogant and stupid can they be? I would not want to be holding Microsoft stock at this time.. I don't care how inconvenient it might be, I will not be using any Microsoft OS after W2k SP2.

[LvR]

KvH

The intention was more to highlight the possible BSODs, even though I do agree in genereal about the EULA.

So - screw Bill - installed sp3 on a testbed after a ghost and full backup, disabled auto update, setup firewall to block uncle Bill talking, and .......................nothing.!

Machine still behaves just like before with only SP2, and the firewall is not logging any unwanted activity (yet?).

As far as I am concerned, I paid for W2K with all the bugfixes that they did not get right the first time round. If they wanna force me to accept their changing terms and conditions in order to get what I am entitled to , they have another thing coming. I answered yes to the twit EULA - so let him just try. . My guess is those installing SP3 will all have the same attitude - a good friend of mine once commented You simply cannot fart against thunder - but thats no reason to be afraid of it". As soon as I have evaluated SP3s' behaviour on this machine, it will be going onto all my other machines - regardless of Bills mutterings.

Bill can ask to install as often as he wants, but the firewall will tell him what to do with his forced updates in no uncertain terms.

W2K is just about the most perfect OS for my particular needs at the moment.

I do not have the time to now suddenly chuck all my past experience overboard just because Bill says I have to if I want what should have been included in W2K to start off with.

You want me to break the "law" - just see how eager I am. "

[MK]

WyWyWyWy - I suppose you`re from the United States, right ?

MK

[WyWyWyWy]

No sorry I'm not.
I have lived in many countries and now the United Kingdom.

Does "I suppose you`re from the United States" mean "hey who doesn't use warez!"?

....

Not that I have paid for my Win2k though...

...

[MK]

WyWyWyWy - Completely wrong, I didn`t had warez in mind. Software piracy is not what am concerned about; but it is the recent development in the US and Europe when it comes to fundamental rights.

These MS contracts are the same as if you buy a new BMW and you have to sign a contract that the company has the right to change technical details or it`s appearance if they like to.

MK

[SteveC]

Does anyone just not really care? I'm going to install SP3 and not bother myself over the EULA. I want SP3 for any bugfixes/performance enhancements/compatibility etc etc, and if MS wants to talk to my PC, why should I care? I admit I've not paid for my copy - I'm using the same licence as my PC at work. Is MS really going to come to me personally and tell me off?